Washington hopes to set up around 10 "interceptor" missiles in central Europe, possibly in Poland or the Czech Republic, to ward off potential attacks with ballistic missiles, perhaps from countries like Iran.

Iran, deep in conflict with the West over its nuclear programme, said in April that it had tested a new generation medium-range missile featuring multiple warheads and radar-evading technology.

The Pentagon says that no decision has been taken yet about where on the old continent the missile defence system might be located.

"We expect these consultations will continue in the coming weeks and months with countries that have expressed an interest," spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters in Washington on Monday.

Some experts suggest the plans have run up against different visions of what constitutes a threat on either side of the Atlantic.

"There is a difference in perception. America is looking at protection from strategic missile attacks from places like China, North Korea and Iran. Europe doesn't believe that's a threat," said Andrew Brookes, from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

"Europeans, inherently, don't buy into this fantasy," which essentially dates back to the "star wars" satellite defence projects of former president Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, he said.

At NATO headquarters, officials refused to publicly comment on the US plans.

"The US took a political decision to go ahead with the deployment of a missile defence system years ago whereas Europe hasn't had that discussion," said one NATO source, adding that Washington is "forging ahead".

That debate may not yet have taken place, but the 26 members of NATO have in hand a 10,000-page feasibility study setting out the case for a missile shield and the possible scenarios in which one might be useful.

Ordered by NATO leaders in Prague in 2002, the text has not been discussed at political level as yet but the United States is pushing its allies to debate the subject at the next alliance summit in Riga, Latvia in November.

In it, one point is made clear.

"There is a growing threat of long-range missile attack on NATO territory and it is timely to examine ways and means of addressing that threat" in Europe, said Marshall Billingslea, head of NATO's Conference of National Armaments Directors, announcing that the report had been completed.

Nevertheless, Europe is unlikely to act too hastily.

"On the European side, there is an almost categorical refusal to take decisions on the run," said Rik Coolsaet, from the Royal Institute of International Relations in Brussels.

"Politically, Europeans understand that there is a potential danger from the Iranians but it is not a danger they see likely in the short term," he said, adding: "the sense of urgency is far less present in Europe than in the United States.

Another obstacle -- and a big one -- to accepting the US plan is that it remains to be seen whether such a missile shield can actually work.

"We are being asked -- us, the Europeans -- to make a huge investment to by a programme which, even in the United States, is not believed to be ready," said Coolsaet.

"It isn't working," Brookes said of the missile shield plan.

"We have to focus on the threat that really matters, and what matters at present is defending troops that might be deployed rather than defending Berlin against a perception of a threat," he said, in reference to ongoing work at NATO to build a theatre missile defence system.

"German politicians, French politicians and British politicians do not regard Pyongyang as about to launch anything in the foreseeable future at a European capital, they just don't", he said.

Related Links